"Is Religious Faith Reasonable?" My Debate Opener Against Dr. Jim Spiegel
This debate took place at the Fort Wayne Library last night. Videos should be forthcoming. See what you think.
Stealing from God: Causality, Part 1
This is my second post on Frank Turek’s book, Stealing from God and the first one on his chapter on causality. Since he covers a lot of ground in this chapter, I’ll only deal with his major points. 
As we saw last time, Turek conflates atheism with materialism. He therefore claims that atheists must say everything is physical. This of course includes every cause — and from that it follows either that the cause of the physical universe is itself physical, or that the universe doesn’t have a cause.
The first one can’t be true, however, since there would in that case have to be something physical before there was anything physical. And the second can’t be either, he says, since it makes no sense for the entire universe to just appear causelessly out of nothing. The only option that makes sense is the one atheists reject, namely, that the universe has a non-physical cause.
The first one can’t be true, however, since there would in that case have to be something physical before there was anything physical. And the second can’t be either, he says, since it makes no sense for the entire universe to just appear causelessly out of nothing. The only option that makes sense is the one atheists reject, namely, that the universe has a non-physical cause.
Bart Ehrman's Latest Book, "The Triumph of Christianity"
I haven't read it yet, but it looks very good. It's getting a lot of five star reviews and accolades on Amazon. It seeks to explain the rise of Christianity from being a forbidden religion with just twenty peasants or so, in rural Galilee, to "the dominant religion in the West in less than four hundred years." See for yourselves: The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. Any comments from people who know of it?
The Illusion of Certainty, An Excellent Book by James Houk Now Available
Somehow it slipped my mind to mention this when it was published in December 2017. So here it is. Anthropologist Dr. James T. Houk just published The Illusion of Certainty: How the Flawed Beliefs of Religion Harm Our Culture. I wrote a blurb for it:
This very powerful and informative book exposes the illusion of certainty borne of religious fundamentalism for what it really is, unsubstantiated ignorant beliefs that masquerade as certainty. Using several key examples, Houk illustrates that "virtually anything and everything, no matter how absurd, inane, or ridiculous, has been believed or claimed to be true at one time or another by somebody, somewhere in the name of faith." He proves that to adopt faith-based claims with blind certainty has caused untold misery and death and must be jettisoned from modern life if we want a good society. Excellent and highly recommended!As you can tell, I think you should take a look then get it. I put it in the sidebar with other recommended books.
David Silverman Has Been Fired From American Atheists
David Silverman just got fired as the president of American Atheists after allegations of financial conflicts and sexual assault. He was the president for about eight years. This is a sad state of affairs for us as atheists. If he did the actions he's accused of, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then he's done some real harm to people. LINK.
Lest Christians be giddy about this, let me remind them of what's in their own backyard.
Lest Christians be giddy about this, let me remind them of what's in their own backyard.
God Gets a Big Fat “F” as an Author
The Bible as Word of God: Fatal Flaw #2 (out of 5)
Surely one of the biggest PR challenges in Western history has been making the case that the Bible is The Good Book. Of course, the church had a free pass for a long time; it could get away with claiming the Bible as ‘word of God’ for the many centuries during which the laity had no access to scripture. The faithful could see scripture depicted on the ceilings and walls of the great churches and cathedrals: much larger-than-life, idealized portrayals of Bible heroes. It’s easy to get away with myth—and disguise the mistakes—when you’ve mastered awesome production values.
Stealing from God?
A while back, I was told by a religious critic that I really needed to read Frank Turek’s Stealing from God. Well, I’ve finally accepted the challenge (even if it isn’t much of a challenge) — and thought it might be interesting to write a series of posts as a sort of running commentary on it.
But even though presuppositionalism strikes me as rather desperate, I have to admit that the idea behind Turek’s book is pretty clever. In six chapters, he considers six areas in which the atheist supposedly steals from the Christian worldview: causality, reason, information and intentionality, morality, evil, and science. These six form (well, almost) the acronym CRIMES – the crimes against theism.
The problem is that Turek is a very bad judge of the evidence, and that that’s the case is obvious right from the start. In the introduction, he claims that atheists “must make a positive case that only material things exist” — something that would come as a surprise to such atheistic critics of materialism as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. Worse, he then lists eleven things that, according to atheism, must be “caused by materials and consists only of materials”:
Why is the Religious Right Obsessed With Abortion?
This topic is hotly debated in one form or another on social media all of the time. Liberals seem unable to get their heads around the fervent, single mindedness that drives the religious right when it comes to the question of abortion. This single issue has developed into the "great divider". I can count on one hand the number of times that I’ve followed a debate between the two sides on a topic such as corporate wars or guns in schools without abortion being brought up. Inevitably, someone pitches abortion as a counter argument. Perhaps according to the devout, there is no other form of senseless murder that compares to what they perceive as a continuous slaughter of unborn children. We might as well have wars if we’re going to kill babies.
When Clergy “Just Say No” to Christianity
A Review of John Compere’s book, Outgrowing Religion
Pope Francis may, as a show of theistic solidarity, offer handshakes and hugs to leading Protestant, Jewish and Muslim clerics. Such posturing plays well with the faithful and the media. We’ve all seen the feel-good photo ops. (I wonder, are the Mormons ever included? Or do they still smell too much like a cult?)
The pope knows full well, of course, that the other theistic brands are wrong about God—and he could tell you why. They all could point out the errors of the others, and they all have teams of apologists to back them up. When the most devout theists disagree with each other—as much as they disagree with nonbelievers—why aren’t they embarrassed by the discord? Sad to say, the brains of these hardcore faith fanatics have been wired not to allow interference. Each brand specializes in capturing brains at the earliest possible age.
Bad Arguments in the Bible
In The Truth about God, I discussed three kinds of problem in the Bible: its internal inconsistencies, its falsehoods, and its immorality. But bad arguments should perhaps be regarded as a fourth category — smaller than the other three (there aren’t many arguments in scripture), but nevertheless just as problematic. For why would God’s inspired word contain bad logic — especially when the topic is of the highest importance?
I'm Debating Dr. James S. Spiegel Twice in April.
Spiegel is an apologist who believes atheists reject his god because of immorality, as argued in his book, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. I'm sure Randal Rauser disagrees with him about this. For details on both debates see the posters below:
Just When I Thought a Christian Apologist Couldn’t Go Any Lower
“At long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?”
One of intrepid Christian apologists who haunts the Debunking Christianity blog has, in coming to his god’s defense, reached a new low of callousness. In response to my article about the Black Plague in the 14th Century, which killed a third or more of Europe’s population, he wrote:
“Yes, the Black Death and other epidemics throughout recorded history killed a lot of people - perhaps as many as 400 million altogether. That's still only 0.4% of the 108 billion people who have ever lived. Those who died of the plague died relatively quickly - within around four days or so. Compare that to cancer or Alzheimer's, and take your pick.”
Happy Secular Easter Bunny!
For the past thirteen years, I've been returning to Spain. Although I've lived many other places for extended periods, Spain is one of my favorite places to reside. So much so that I lease an apartment in the Andalucian, seaside village of Torre De Mar every February, March and April. The timing isn't intentional, but usually I'm here for Semana Santa (Holy Week). No other country does Semana Santa any better than Spain in spite of the fact that it is one of the most secular countries in Europe these days. The grand processions that wind their way through the ancient streets for a week of festivities are impressive and the tradition is not going away any time soon. Semana Santa makes too much money for Spain. So what's the moral of the story according to this atheist who finds herself living everywhere but nowhere?
Disproof of the Christian God, Without a Doubt
The Easy Acceptance of the Very Terrible
When did doubt begin? H. L. Mencken thought that it could have happened at the get-go:
“There must have been skeptics at the ringside when the first priest performed his hocus-pocus, and no doubt, some of them, revolting against its transparent fraudulence, set themselves to find a better way to deal with flood, fire and famine.” (Treatise on the Gods, 1930)
Maybe so, but skeptics were outnumbered. In the ancient world, gods were imagined, invented and worshipped all over the place. With little understanding of causation, it’s no wonder. Earthquakes, volcanoes, thunder and lightening were warnings and curses from higher powers. Good things that happened—the return of spring and vegetation, crops and harvests—were credited to gods in a good mood.
A Charming Bible Story… and Its Bad Theology
Mark, Chapter 2: another installment of the fantasy novel
Some gospel episodes are so irresistible that they end up in Bible books for kids, which may be the ultimate test of a story’s suitability for telling “the good news.” Preachers and Sunday School teachers get all the mileage they can from them.
One such story is reported early in Jesus’ preaching career, as events are portrayed in Mark’s gospel. Jesus had already achieved local fame:
“When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them.” (Mark 2:1-2)
Dustin Lawson on my book "Unapologetic"
Dustin Lawson just wrote me:
"I was looking into a doctorate in philosophy of religion at Ohio State University then I picked up and read your book "Unapologetic." Now, I am reconsidering."
Dustin is a former disciple of Josh McDowell, yes that McDowell, the father of Sean McDowell. ;-)
"I was looking into a doctorate in philosophy of religion at Ohio State University then I picked up and read your book "Unapologetic." Now, I am reconsidering."
Dustin is a former disciple of Josh McDowell, yes that McDowell, the father of Sean McDowell. ;-)
Famous Jesus Stories Keep Taking Direct Hits
A review of Richard C. Miller’s Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity
Christian theologians have admitted for a long time—despite the anguish of church folks who believe in ‘the gospel truth’—that many Bible stories, always assumed to be history, really aren’t. “Well, you can’t take that literally,” we’re told; farfetched stories are re-categorized as metaphor or symbol, and we’re assured that they convey “deep spiritual truth” —even when they don’t all. But we can admire the ingenuity, although we do wonder if they don’t have better things to do with their time.
But this is a minefield: When you scrap one story, another that you don’t want to scrap falls apart too. I have long argued that this is what happens with the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to heaven. We know that Jesus floating up through the clouds to heaven didn’t happen because heaven isn’t up there. So we can be one hundred per cent certain that the body of newly alive Jesus never left the planet…unless he’s in orbit to this day?
Is Sam Harris Redefining Morality?
As most people reading this probably know, Sam Harris claims that morality is concerned with well-being, and thus that science can, at least in principle, determine which are the correct moral values. However, some critics have claimed that Harris is talking about morality in a non-standard sense, and that as a result his argument doesn’t work.
Whether Harris is redefining morality came up in a recent discussion between Matt Dillahunty and YouTuber Stephen Woodford. (I didn’t watch the whole video, but the question is briefly discussed starting at 1:12:54.)
When God Lived Just a Few Miles Up
The never-ending reinvention of God
It’s really not a good idea to ignore your roots, but sometimes people have a vested interest in doing so—at least trying to. Christian theologians have made a mighty effort to overcome their roots, namely, the thought world of the Old and New Testaments.
We can look at puzzling, bizarre items of faith today and see their origins in the old texts. We marvel that the folks in the pews don’t balk at the stuff they’re expected to believe. For example, intense personal theism, the belief that nothing you do or think escapes God’s notice—which is embraced by Christians today as naturally as breathing—derives from ancient assumptions about the location, the proximity of the gods.
Evolution is Now Accepted By More and More Evangelicals! Yesterday's Liberals Are Now Today's Evangelicals, Go Figure!
Evangelicals in the nineteen seventies rejected Karl Barth, women in leadership/teaching roles, the annihilation view of hell, inclusivist salvation, the mythical interpretation of the Genesis creation stories, the late dating of 2nd Isaiah and Daniel, and they especially rejected homosexuality and evolution. Any attempt to reject the historicity of the Garden of Eden story of Adam and Eve's fall into sin (from whence this all began) was rejected outright without a second thought. These liberal views are now being accepted by evangelicals while still calling themselves evangelicals rather than liberals.
Karl W. Gilberson said "The Evolution Wars Are Here to Stay and Heads Will Continue to Roll." Later I'll be sharing books by evangelicals, or former evangelicals, who now embrace evolution. It's something I never expected would happen. This dispute is taking place along with the debate evangelicals are having over homosexuality. It must be fun being an evangelical these days. Not! Evolutionary science and the acceptance of gay marriages is the wave of the future among evangelicals. You can count on it. Gone will be a historical fall into sin by two individuals named Adam (male) and Eve (female)--which never made sense anyway--and the prohibition against homosexuality. There are apparently no limits to their ability to find loopholes in the Bible so they can obfuscate their theology. It will become the new evangelical orthodoxy in the future, as I have predicted. Then amnesia will set in, and future evangelicals will claim true evangelicals always stood for these things! Their amnesia will provide quite the laugh to the rest of us, since we saw it coming. In fact, that's what they've been doing since the inception of their faith when it came to the question of who should be circumcised.
Karl W. Gilberson said "The Evolution Wars Are Here to Stay and Heads Will Continue to Roll." Later I'll be sharing books by evangelicals, or former evangelicals, who now embrace evolution. It's something I never expected would happen. This dispute is taking place along with the debate evangelicals are having over homosexuality. It must be fun being an evangelical these days. Not! Evolutionary science and the acceptance of gay marriages is the wave of the future among evangelicals. You can count on it. Gone will be a historical fall into sin by two individuals named Adam (male) and Eve (female)--which never made sense anyway--and the prohibition against homosexuality. There are apparently no limits to their ability to find loopholes in the Bible so they can obfuscate their theology. It will become the new evangelical orthodoxy in the future, as I have predicted. Then amnesia will set in, and future evangelicals will claim true evangelicals always stood for these things! Their amnesia will provide quite the laugh to the rest of us, since we saw it coming. In fact, that's what they've been doing since the inception of their faith when it came to the question of who should be circumcised.
Choosing Hell
“God won’t force you into Heaven against your will. If you don’t want him now here, you’re not going to want him in eternity.”
— Frank Turek
The above is an increasingly common idea among Christians: God is merely giving you the freedom to choose. The point, of course, is to avoid the criticism that God punishes nonbelievers by sending them to hell. Instead, God simply let’s some of us spend eternity apart from him. As C. S. Lewis put it, "the gates of hell are locked on the inside."
But as usual, the religious want to have it both ways. For, if hell is simply what the rest of us prefer, then why bother with trying to save our souls? If I’m simply not going to want to be with God, as Turek says, that means I’ll be happier in hell — so why try to convince me to go to heaven instead?
People Who Shouldn't Be Trusted As Experts in Religious Matters. Reviewing Mittelberg's Book "Confident Faith" Part 13
Earlier I had offered up Five Things That Disqualify People From Being Experts. Now it's time to mention several indicators showing who shouldn't be trusted as experts in religious matters. These are indicators, some of which are strong indicators, but on their own they don't necessarily disqualify people from being experts in religious matters, although they can. I've categorized them in four groups of indicators: Ignorance, Faulty Reasoning, Faulty Research, and Dishonest or Ulterior Motives. (I'm not going to provide examples in several cases so suggest them as you can.)
Dr. John Shook On Pragmatism, Commenting on Mittelberg's Book "Confident Faith"
Dr. Shook is a leading expert on Pragmatism. So I asked him to comment on Mittelberg's inability to distinguish between pragmatism and relativism. He offered one quick helpful comment:
Pragmatism says that anyone finding out what reality is like has to examine all available evidence pro and con, and then go get fresh evidence that tests the current view. Pragmatism is about the scientific method. It looks like relativism to someone who wants final answers right now. Only one pragmatist, William James, ever said that what is useful is true, and he only said that to make a helpful analogy, not explain the theory. If morality, not reality, is the topic, pragmatism is skeptical towards people who think they know the absolute rules for life. Test those rules by applying them in the real world - you will find out you actually know a lot less. Morality should serve what is good for all lives; lives must not be sacrificed for abstract principle.There. Asking an expert. That was easy!
Five Things That Disqualify People From Being Experts in Religious Matters. Reviewing Mittelberg's Book "Confident Faith" Part 12
I'm reviewing Mark Mittelberg's book Confident Faith. [See the "Mark Mittelberg" tag below for others]. Mittelberg had argued we need authorities since we cannot be experts in everything. So the "question is not if we'll be under authority, but which authorities we'll trust and respond to?" (p. 66) Trust! That's a key point. For my purposes I'm talking about experts with regard to the truth and their level of competence in religious matters (my focus). Are Mark Mittelberg and other conservative Christian apologists to be considered experts we can trust?
In post 10 of this series I made two points. 1) People should not be trusted as experts in religious matters who are not just wrong, but incompetent and even dishonest with the facts. And I provided some evidence in several links that there are some apologists, even top apologists, who are ignorant, incompetent and even dishonest with the facts. They should not be considered experts worthy of our trust. I also argued that 2) Mittelberg's dim view of science should disqualify him as an expert whom we can trust in Religious Matters. One would think science is a bunch of guesswork from what he wrote. Anyone who talks that way about science is not just ignorant but incompetent, and maybe dishonest with the facts. So he's not an expert we can trust, period. Then I gave him an assignment to look at two books of science in hopes he might change his deluded mind. If he's an honest person who truly wants to know the truth, they will change it. [If you object to my harsh language I'm just being honest with the facts. No personal offense should be taken. See Dr. Stephen Law's Five Morals To Guide Atheists and Believers In Our Debates.]
In post 10 of this series I made two points. 1) People should not be trusted as experts in religious matters who are not just wrong, but incompetent and even dishonest with the facts. And I provided some evidence in several links that there are some apologists, even top apologists, who are ignorant, incompetent and even dishonest with the facts. They should not be considered experts worthy of our trust. I also argued that 2) Mittelberg's dim view of science should disqualify him as an expert whom we can trust in Religious Matters. One would think science is a bunch of guesswork from what he wrote. Anyone who talks that way about science is not just ignorant but incompetent, and maybe dishonest with the facts. So he's not an expert we can trust, period. Then I gave him an assignment to look at two books of science in hopes he might change his deluded mind. If he's an honest person who truly wants to know the truth, they will change it. [If you object to my harsh language I'm just being honest with the facts. No personal offense should be taken. See Dr. Stephen Law's Five Morals To Guide Atheists and Believers In Our Debates.]
A Tale of Two Deathbeds
Pushing the ‘eternal life’ gimmick
“First off [pointing up], I want to thank God, ‘cause that’s who I look up to. He has graced my life with opportunities that I know are not of my hand or any other human hand…when you’ve got God you’ve got friend...”
Well, isn’t that special. The case can be made that millions of humans haven’t been noticed—let alone graced—by God; every day they face crippling poverty and starvation, deadly disease and the brutalities of war. But Lucky Matthew: God has thrown opportunities his way. Somehow Matthew got to be one of the centers of God’s universe.
Apologists Aren't Happy With the Internet. Reviewing Mittelberg's "Confident Faith" Part 11
I'm reviewing Mark Mittelberg's book Confident Faith. [See the "Mark Mittelberg" tag below for others]. I'm doing this online for all to see. I like it. Christian apologists don't.
William Lane Craig picks a question of the week to answer on his Reasonable Faith website. On October 21, 2013 he wrote an answer to a Christian who was in the throes of doubt due to the writings of David G. McAfee. He or she wrote:
William Lane Craig picks a question of the week to answer on his Reasonable Faith website. On October 21, 2013 he wrote an answer to a Christian who was in the throes of doubt due to the writings of David G. McAfee. He or she wrote:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)